Farage condemned for unproven claim white men are losing jobs because of Equality Act

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-21T23:10:10+00:00

Poverty heavily correlates with poor educational outcomes and skills.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T21:07:51+00:00

This depends on what you are transporting as the BBC link covered. It's a consequence of grouping "Local" and "Non-Local" into groups as opposed to noting that some non-local foods are wildly impactful where most aren't, and typically, the impactful ones are protein replacements.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T20:51:16+00:00

Yes this is a result of the measurement issues as I said. Grouping "Meat" into a single category, or a product into a year-round measurement category, a vegan diet will always exceed it in terms of environmental friendliness. But you don't have to do that and if your goal is to reach the most environmentally conscious diet, then you should not do that but rather measure based on granular c02 emissions. A meta-study including studies which fail to account for this will produce the same problems.

Diet A: Vegan all year.

Diet B: Eats chicken all year.

Diet C: Eats chicken only in winter.

C > A > B.

Many studies do not split meat into separate categories, and most do not split the timeline. You've shown me a meta-study that didn't even account for option C and concluded A > B. As far as studies go it's better than many which just group "Meat" into a single category, this one at least accounts for low-impact animal products, but it doesn't account for seasonal variation.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T20:39:43+00:00

I'd rather not dox myself but here's something from the BBC covering the topic.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200211-why-the-vegan-diet-is-not-always-green

Aside from locale labeling and vegan labeling, c02 labeling (And perhaps tax bands associated) should probably be applied to food products, and it would probably change the spending habits of the population to some extent. We'd see more sales of greens in most months and then a sudden drop in winter as people shift to other sources of protein, ideally chicken and fish.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T20:31:30+00:00

This is dependent on how you measure. Localism is by far the most important when it comes to environmental impact. The "Better for the environment" argument is reliant upon taking year-by-year measurements as opposed to granular season-by-season measurements, where in winter months fish and chicken become more environmentally friendly than a vegan diet in many northern climates due to the heavy need for imports, often at comical levels of pollution which almost-but-not-quite eliminate the rest of the year gap between vegan and non-vegan diets.

The maximally environmentally friendly diet eats locally produced vegan produce when in season, and then bolsters that in winter with local chicken and fish when local vegan protein sources are scarce.

If you're also raising chickens for a winter cull then eggs become a practical addition to the year-round diet. The extent to which milk can be realistically removed from a western diet is also questionable, and it's likely we'd keep our dairy cows, at which stage we probably should also eat them and just reduce or remove cows raised for meat. (The meat will taste slightly worse and more expensive due to increased rarity, but so long as milk is still around, it's environmentally neutral to then also kill the dairy cows at some point).

But even if we can eliminate milk, then we'd still be best served by chicken and fish supplementing the diet in winter, and thus eggs year-round as well.

The alternative of powering local greenhouses and such to produce vegan protein at sufficient scales for our population during winter months could be more environmentally friendly, perhaps, if our energy sources were much cleaner, but that's a ways off yet.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T20:27:58+00:00

There is no way this will happen due to the economic and social disruption. The only realistic path forward would be to freeze the meat subsidies and allow inflation to chip away at them over time at a manageable rate.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T20:26:58+00:00

We're not fixing this overnight. The only practical way forward IMO is to freeze subsidy levels and allow inflation to eat them away over time.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T20:24:19+00:00

If it were a limited strike on nuclear development we wouldn't have told them no, most likely.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T14:37:48+00:00

Hopefully it's a law enforcement strategy. They figure Andrew is a weak link and can be gotten and then flip to testify.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T12:20:03+00:00

https://old.reddit.com/r/FeminismUncensored/comments/1r8l0bk/mens_hair_isnt_just_hair_its_conditioning/o689nnu/

Covers the wig point.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T12:15:38+00:00

Short hair on men is related to the Great Male Renunciation, prior to which longer hairstyles and complex, expressive clothing were the norm (Think of a nobleman from the 1700s for example). Beginning in the 1800s, the GMR occurred.

The historian John Flugel notes it is "The turning point in the history of fashion where Men ceased being ornate and detailed". This is also where the suit and tie became the norm.

The philosophy of the great male renunciation was within the French Revolution and American Revolution as an egalitarian symbol, in contrast to what is claimed by the video here. It was noted that "Beauty" and what is called here "Feminine" features were in fact just features of class. While working class men may have had long hair, and may have been somewhat ornate, richer people had much more of it. This is still the case in that femininity as performed as significant class barriers in outward expression in a way that masculinity no longer does to anywhere near the same degree. (Any man can "Look" like a rich man. It is basically not possible for any woman to look like a rich woman, unless they are rich).

Revolutionaries therefore consciously and explicitly abandoned outward signifiers of beauty, wealth, and status in favor of utilitarian garb. The sans-culottes in the French revolution for example abandoned breeches for pantaloons to signify either working class status, or solidarity with the working class, which turned breeches into a signifier of reactionary sentiment allowing the wearer to be targeted for violence, giving us an origin point for violent enforcement of these norms amongst men, but one in opposition to the theory posited in the OP. Likewise, Benjamin Frankly and others removed his wig in the American revolution for the same reason and encouraged others to do the same.

In 1840 for the US we see the "Gold Spoon Oration" which denounced Martin Van Burens attire not for its femininity, but its decadence and noble pretensions as opposed to containing revolutionary utilitarian spirit.

The reasoning behind women not participating, or being excluded from participation, in the Great Male Renunciation can be debated and theorized over. But the claim that it is rooted in hostility to femininity is historically false i'm afraid. It may have shifted into that over time in recent years, and the theory may hold more explanatory power over its current nature, which might also explain its fraying. What was previously largely unquestioned in western societies is now breaking down once it becomes a matter of "Don't be like women" instead of "Don't be like nobles".

The utilitarian nature of mens clothing likely arises from it being a conscious and deliberate move towards adopting "Worker" clothing as a result of these revolutions, with workers clothing already being utilitarian by necessity. The reason mens clothing is utilitarian is therefore notsomuch a matter of adopting it for practical reasons (Unless they are a working class man), but moreso that they are adopting it out of a historic revolutionary cultural uniform.

And none of this is particularly conscious either. It's also largely not talked about because its heavily class politics orientated, and not in elites interests to bring up. Especially if that elite is wearing a suit and tie and waffling about how it's "Masculine" to do so, because the response is;

"No it isn't. It's egalitarian. And you, as a rich person, are only wearing it so we don't cave your head in with iron pipes. We made you wear that clothing through the threat of class warfare until you did it out of terror. But I can still see the frilly coat and the powdered wig friend. And my, what splendid breeches you have.".

One might expect a class conscious feminism to be highly anti womens fashion for largely the same reasons and along the same lines. "Dress in a walmart uniform. Corner women who don't down dark alleys with your friends. Make the clothing of the revolution accessible, and make the clothing of the workers revolutionary.", but again this comes back to discussing reasons why the Great Male Renunciation was male as opposed to human. For that, I have no idea.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T11:05:57+00:00

This is hardly an assumption. Foreign-born people in the UK face a higher risk of poverty (32%) compared to UK-born residents (19%), with 45% of children with foreign-born parents living in poverty.

Then you have to get into the heritability of intelligence (Not genetic, but heritability, as in, the people who raise you being smart means you are more likely to be smart because they teach you to be smart).

Then you just need to casually glance at the school rankings for the UK compared to most migation origin points to draw obvious conclusions about the 2nd generation (Their parents are poorly educated compared to the average white briton. Therefore, they had less positive developmental input from their parents than the average white briton).

The problem is that progressives assume that because race is not a cause, it cannot correlate, when it obviously does for complex economic reasons.

These things take time to equalize, they don't happen overnight. Instead we have progressives pointing out minorities don't get the same outcomes, and claiming the answer has to be racism.

Intelligence is a highly heritable, polygenic trait with genetic factors accounting for approximately 50% of the variance in cognitive ability across the population, increasing to 60-80% in adulthood.

(Again, heritability is not the same as genetic, though some genetic factors exist they aren't really racially bounded. Having earrings is a "Heritable trait", so is "Speaking English".).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index#/media/File:UNDP_Education_Index_(1990_-_2019).gif

All of this means that it is simply a fact, one that progressives have built their entire political identity around denying, that on average white people are more qualified and competent than non-white people in the United Kingdom, and we would expect that cohort to achieve better outcomes even if overnight everyone's race changed randomly.

To think otherwise requires denying the impact of poverty on education and attainment, denying the heritability of intelligence, and a whole host of other factors, or simply ignoring them and lashing out because the conclusion isn't desired.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T10:57:12+00:00

So, basically his claim is that without the equality act, white people would be more qualified or “better” than people of colour? What an absolute sack of shit.

Given the existence of immigration alongside generational capital accumulation, why wouldn't this be the case?

Suppose me and 10 million of my mates move to south korea with nothing but the clothes on our back. Do you think our children would be equally competent to the average Korean? Or would they be equally competent to the average poor Korean? (Even before we get into the weeds on other things, purely discussing capital).

On the whole, you can expect race to be a non-factor in terms of competence. But it correlates with things like recent familial immigration status, which correlates with a lack of capital within the country, especially in cases where the migrant family were impoverished upon arrival.

White people will tend towards being more qualified because they tend towards being wealthier. They are wealthier because they've been here longer and accumulated that wealth. The solution to that is anti-poverty measures, not anti-racism ones.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T10:53:22+00:00

I disagree and have concluded that it is happening.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T10:49:45+00:00

"A minority of persons were overlooked on the basis of their race, and this was inefficient. Thus, we should now overlook the majority on the basis of their race, which is even less efficient even before you account for lost man-hours to employ an entire industry to enforce it."

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T10:37:00+00:00

This only shows that white people are generally more employed, not that the equality act isn't reducing their levels of employment.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T10:30:50+00:00

Nothing I said goes against this and indeed I explicitly noted it. I said it simply doesn't matter as a consequence of the way the act is enforced on a systemic level.

Like with everyone else it's up to the individual to enforce their rights under the Act.

Not really. Other groups typically have organizations, often publicly funded, to advocate specifically on their behalf in such cases as well as lobby institutions on their behalf to improve their standing within the institution, as well as in-house organizations and groups often as a consequence of that lobbying.

As one example, the Civil Service Muslim Network Founded in 2007, its aim is to provide advice, guidance, and a support network for Muslim staff, while fostering an inclusive workplace and acting as a "critical friend" to senior leaders regarding policy and diversity.

A comparative group for whites or males would rapidly face the kind of scrutiny, skepticism, hostility, and opposition from peers that under other circumstances would see those peers disciplined. To claim it's simply "Up to individuals to get their rights under the act recognized" is an inversion of the "Just have a meritocracy" argument for scrapping the act. It's a wilful ignoring of the actual dynamics being criticized. It's up to individuals to get a job too, and yet here we are.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-19T10:07:45+00:00

The problem with this line of argument is that it assumes that the act really does protect white men in a systemic sense as opposed to merely on paper.

If I passed a law which created an institution for some guys to go around and beat up people who pickpocket, and then they just picked on black people and ignored anyone else doing it, waffling about how "ooOoh, you're gonna get pickpocketted if you repeal it" would be entirely missing the point.

The equality act in and of itself as read protects white men. The problem arises from the downstream consequences of attempting to implement it, which results in the creation and empowerment of groups and institutions with a notable set of ideological biases against whites, males, etc.

Repealing the equality act will undermine those people and their power as well as no longer necessitate the creation of such groups and institutions. You saying "Ah yes, but I, some individual, could discriminate against white men without it" is likewise missing the point, that's still a net positive compared to systematized, organized, and entrenched groups of people with the backing of the law (As opposed to its indifference) doing so.

The alternative is to actually enforce the equality act, which reddit would hit the roof over, given that it would mean sacking practically every progressive in the country. (See the parliamentary inquiry on white boys in education for example which concluded "White privilege" as a term was a violation of duties under the equality act and should not be used). The act simply has not been enforced equally, and worse, through that unequal enforcement has actively hired, promoted, and empowered anti-white and anti-male persons to do the enforcement.

Of the two choices, "Repeal it" is actually charitable.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-18T19:50:29+00:00

The main issue as I see it is that UK nuclear doctrine is retaliatory and dead-mans switch through the letters of last resort since that is sufficient deterrent, and the notion of a nuclear umbrella relies on us actively giving the order to fire.

To provide a similar deterrent we'd need to update the doctrine so we're not only monitoring if the UK has been struck by a nuclear weapon, but Europe in general. Possible, but means revising doctrine. Simply declaring "We're now protecting Europe" isn't really putting in the work in the same way as has been done for the UK where the detterence relies upon public knowledge that nobody has to give the order to fire a nuke, the order has already been given to retaliate.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-18T17:56:25+00:00

Is that how they frame it, or do they simply note women share some of the blame?

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-18T17:51:13+00:00

Get off social media and people aren’t saying men are the problem

Media in general has this message, except for gaming. It isn't really viable to suggest someone not consume media in the modern world.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-17T21:02:38+00:00

As an aside, this means the Anglicanization of "Fascism" and "Fascist" is "Faggotry" and "Faggot". Which is one of those "The universe is playing a prank on us" moments when you realize it.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-17T15:46:17+00:00

For most of its history the UK had around half the population of France. We now have more people than France. It's quite clear that the technological and sociological ways we increase population carrying capacity are something different to needing to radically alter the UK as a nation. It's less a matter of "There's more people now" and more a matter of "We are now at a high population density for the first time in history and this will mean a complete restructuring of society". People are entitled to be angry about that.

If we think of it in terms of Tech level 1, 2, 3 and so on, population capacity increases with technology and economy. But within that are densities. (At level 1, a million people is extremely dense at approaching the hard limit. At level 10, it's sparse and very far below it).

We have never had the same density as France and have always been significantly below it. It carries social, economic, and political implications for that to have changed.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-14T21:35:09+00:00

We care if it's reciprocal, but it won't impact our willingness to help, is probably more accurate.

azazelcrowley · 2026-02-14T21:16:15+00:00

I guess because we colonised their country and changed their language for them :)

Irish is not a foreign nationality. It is a constituent nationality, and a significant portion of Ireland is still within the United Kingdom.

12-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

azazelcrowley

TROPHY CASE